Share this:

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 11:00 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

1 in 4 under 20s with nothing to do. No purpose in their day and nothing to create a sense of belonging and boost their self-esteem. Been in that situation (Thatcher’s Britain) and know how hard it was to keep on trying for jobs after being turned away over & over again. I think it’s potentially such a huge problem that all parties need to work together on this and not just use it as a political point scoring blame game. These are real people and if we fail to get them into work of some kind then these are the long term unemployed of the future. NZ can’t afford to have so many young people in this situation.

Continuing with the idiotic “legislating for wealth” stupidity increased this week by $20 a week, the under 24 demographic is set to create even more lives ruined by not learning the transition steps from school/home to a job/independence status and further entrenchment of serial unemployment.

Our unemployment rate doesn’t mean a thing as everyone with a marketable skill moves across the ditch when there’s no work.

But wait, if that’s true, it means we have a terrible unemployment:all these people unemployed are probably unemployable and can’t or won’t move.

And National is making it even harder with making sure my kids can’t get jobs as the minimum wage will make it uneconomic to employ them. Self-service and robots become more attractive by the day. Which will increase our unemployment problem even further.

Saying, in effect, “why can’t we all just get along?” is neither practical nor realistic. It is the very opposite of pragmatism. It is simply wishful thinking.

Jinky,

All parties agree on the existence of the problem, but there’s no point insisting that they agree on the solution. For a start, there is irreconcilable gap between the parties as to whether government represents a solution to youth unemployment, or is in fact the cause of it. If you can’t agree on that, you’ll never agree on the solution.

Moreover, given the gulf in opinions as to the cause of youth unemployment, agreement on the solution between the parties would be dangerous. What if they simply agreed on a politically expedient solution that was totally counter productive? Debate on the subject is far more useful than faux consensus.